I have a second blog, Writopia which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods and embellishment of his personal achievements.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Publisher's Weekly: Silence Speaks Loudly

I sent the following email yesterday to the Editor-in-Chief of Publisher's Weekly. No reply.

It's more than a little frustrating to have PW's reporting so obviously biased when it's used by many in the book trade to form their opinions in this issue ... or should I say to "misinform their opinions?"

PW has consistently stated (most recently June 6) that I sued Random House for copyright infringement. That is incorrect. Random House sued me.

All of my subsequent legal action has been to defend myself, primarily against Random House's written threat of punitive financial retribution against me.

In addition, if your reporters include a comment or quote from Random House on an issue of this sort, don't you think it is appropriate for your reporters to attempt some sort of fairness by contacting me for comment as well? That was not done in your June 6 article nor in any articles previously printed.

I am not asking for special treatment, just for articles dealing with me to be accurate and fair.

There is a lot to this story that runs counter to the Random House spin machine's line. Your readers might even find some of that worthwhile and interesting reading.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

Thanks for the post. Skint or otherwise, I can go to sleep (and eventually to the grave) knowing I did the right thing ... and since we all have to sleep and to die, that counts most in the end.

My email is very easy to obtain, so I hope that those with Wordpress, Typepad and other blogs will email me ... when I try to allow non-blogger accounts, I get a flood of profane, obscene and otherwise useless and irrelevant crap from Dan Brown cult drones determined to spew the predictable.

In Old Testament law, it was clearly stated that a priest, if he were to take a wife, the maiden would have to be a virgin. Jesus, being a priest after the order of the Levitical priesthood, would have most certainly kept this law. And since Mary Magdalene was a repentent harlot, there is in no way Jesus would have betrothed her. A warning to those who want to believe this fictional absurdity; a Bible prophecy states that in the last days men would have "itching ears" to believe a lie. The whole purpose of this film is to bring down Christs' divinity, to make him out to be a mere man. Jesus, being the Son of God, could have for himself a thousand maidens if he wished. Why then would he take a harlot as a wife?